Paternity test ordered in Duke rape case

[peacebaby3]

A judge Friday ordered a paternity test on a baby expected by the woman who has accused three Duke lacrosse players of rape. But both the district attorney and the defense rejected any possibility that one of the men is the father.

Also Friday, a lab director admitted in court that after an agreement with Nifong, he violated his own procedures and withheld results showing none of the players' DNA was found on or in the woman's body.

Dr. Brian Meehan, lab director at DNA Security Inc., said he and Nifong agreed to include only DNA matches in the report on his testing results. The report released in May omitted information about people the DNA tests excluded, including the fact that no genetic material from any member of the lacrosse team was among that from several males found in the accuser's underwear and body.

"We are extremely troubled by that," Cheshire said. The full testing results, showing the exclusions, were disclosed through a defense request in October. They did not become public until Wednesday.

<http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061215/ap_on_re_us/duke_lacrosse>

This is really horrible. Nifong should put an end to this now.

[ecstatic]

1. Is the baby half-white?

Just wondering... hehe

[NorthernSpy]

5. not sure what strikes you as funny...

:eyes:

[Lex]

2. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2920929&mesg_id=2920929

[peacebaby3]

9. That was about her being pregnant. This is a follow-up about the

paternity test. Nor did I see any quotes about the guy at the lab after discussing it with the DA not releasing all of his findings about the DNA.

[Lex]

13. I only linked it because it was on the same topic

and people might want to read that thread as well.

No one was trying to step on your thread for God's sake. Jeeez.

[peacebaby3]

14. Well, since it was posted with no comment, I'm not sure why there

would be a problem with me explaining the difference.

No worries. Just a misunderstanding. Have a nice day. :)

[ecstatic]

3. On a side note, why is it considered so shocking that a woman might get pregnant,

if not as a result of the rape, then as a result of being sexually intimate, BY CHOICE, with someone else? Let's just say that none of the Lacross players are the father--does that mean that its impossible that she was raped? Or is this just another anti-woman/rape victim attack that has nothing to do with anything?

[Egalitariat]

4. It will be just another addition to the overwhelming pile of evidence

that points to their innocence. These will be the easiest acquittals ever won. That's my prediction, anyways.

[lies and propaganda]

8. and if it turns out to be one of their babies?

still innocent?

[MrCoffee]

10. in light of the suppression of DNA evidence, i'd call it

a Chrismas miracle!

[peacebaby3]

11. She was given a pregnancy test and emergency contraceptive as part of the rape kit.

The pregnancy test was negative.

[lies and propaganda]

12. damn! has it been that long?

time flies...

[Egalitariat]

15. Nope, if that were the case, then one would be guilty. Of course, if if's and but's

were candy and nuts...

[tammywammy]

6. My take

I don't think that this wouldn't have been reported nearly as much, if the day before the DNA fiasco hadn't come out. (And by fiasco, I mean the DNA lab and DA conspiring to keep the DNA results from the defense).

I give her my best wishes in her pregnancy.

Also, I think that the inaccurate reporting of the baby (that's she's already at 9 months, gave birth) helped propel this forward. I read today on DU that she's not due until Feb, so to me it's a non-story.

edited to add:

Here's a link that says Feb. due date.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/12/16/paternity_test_ordered_on_baby_of_duke_accuser/
District Attorney Mike Nifong said he believes the accuser became pregnant at least two weeks after the party and said she is due the first week in February.

[peacebaby3]

7. Since I am a woman and a victim of rape, the answer to your question is

HELL NO!

It's about malicious prosecution!